About this Show

Book TV

Ben Shapiro Education. (2013) 'Bullies How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America.'

NETWORK

DURATION
01:00:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 17 (141 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
704

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Obama 12, George Zimmerman 12, Sudafed 6, George Bush 5, John Boehner 5, America 5, Us 5, Geneva 4, Savannah 4, Colin Powell 4, California 4, Barack Obama 3, Sandy Hook 3, Zimmerman 3, Belize 3, Alec 2, Obama Administration 2, Islam 2, Florida 2, Texas 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Book TV    Ben Shapiro  Education.  (2013) 'Bullies How the  
   Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America.'  

    February 16, 2013
    9:15 - 10:15am EST  

9:15am
nations of africa and we are still paying a price for that. there is a lot of raise involved in that because all so globalization and religion and economics coming together to complicate it. if you are talking about the divisions that cause people to start thinking like enemies, still very much with us. [applause] >> i want to thank taylor branch for being with us tonight. he will be signing books in the library. i want to thank the livingston foundation for sponsoring this lecture and it anybody in california is listening please -- we could really use it. thank you very much. [applause]
9:16am
>> for more information visit the author's website taylor branch.com. >> to take booktv is in savannah, ga. for live coverage of the savannah book festival starting at 10:15 eastern with nobel prize winner and former vice president al gore on the future. 11:thirty-fourth and eighty psychologist heidi squire craft on rule number 2, lessons i've learned in a combat hospital. at 1:30 cnn's chief washington correspondent jake tamper on the war in afghanistan from the outpost. 2:45 presidential historian kevin thomas on ike's glove. at 4:00 pillage a prize-winning historian gerri willis asks why priests. the savannah book festival part of three days of booktv this president's day weekend on c-span2. >> now on booktv ben shapiro
9:17am
contends liberals are guilty of bullying their opposition and creating an environment that discourages political debate. this heritage foundation event is a little under an hour. [applause] >> pleasure to be here. i am a huge fan of heritage foundation, everything they do. one townauld.com was part of heritage foundation it occurs to become a syndicated column. i have a fourth book before "bullies" that is prime-time propaganda, fear and intimidation, i spoke here at heritage for that too. i am also the editor at large of bright barred news and hosted radio locally in los angeles and if you have and ipad and continue, 69 in the morning pacific time. let's talk about andrew bright bart, and mentor of mine. he had just seen a column that i wrote for the ucla daily bruin
9:18am
and as he was wanted is sitting in a greek taco joint in westwood, saw the column and e-mail me and at the time just to seek another half, we got together and became fast friends and one thing we talked about a lot is we knew each other, used to talk a lot about how the left were a bunch of bullies and what the left really does was shutdown the debate, their goal is a policy discussion to label as a bigot homophobes and i saw it happen to him personally and they did that to andrew and tried to demonize him and a rival -- wild man right winger. and one of the most genial people i ever met. when andrew died, 100 people morning him and ninety-five
9:19am
million of them at one point spends time or had lunch with andrew because that is who he was but his main message, the main message is we have to fight the bullies and that is what being a conservative means, fighting belize. the more i got to look into his message the more i realize how right that was and that is why i wrote "bullies". the left side of the political debate is worth less. they're not going to debate policy. they're not going to debate the best way to solve the nation's problems. they're not going to provide evidence. they're going to label us morally deficient human beings and worthy of debate. we see it in every arena in american life. and last week alone we saw it from colin powell, brian williams and president obama himself. colin powell went on the sunday show talking about the dark vein of intolerance that was running throughout the republican party. what evidence did he provide for that assertion? we are not left wing. we don't believe in anthropogenic climate change or we don't believe there should be
9:20am
redistribution of wealth or we don't believe in obamacare. if we would just move to the left that would make us not racist. colin powell above all should know how not raise our party is considering selling in our party were considering supporting him despite his liberalism in 1996 for presidential run and secretary of state under president bush obviously, somebody who is treated well by the republican party but that didn't stop him anyway because now colin powell is on the left and that means we are the bad guys. president obama did in his inaugural address just last week also, there's a peculiar line in his speech where he said absolutism is not printable and name calling is not discussion. he then proceeded to spend rest of his speech name-calling and avoiding principal and being an absolutist. he suggested that he essentially if you disagree with him you want people in their twilight years to live in poverty, you want parents of disabled kids to have no recourse, you want the poor to suffer, you want black people to stand in line to vote and gave people to be treated
9:21am
unequally and want women to be paid less than. he said all those things in his speech and that is the and the tone of his speech. yesterday dianne feinstein leans off of whatever it was, press conference, leads it off with a pastor saying if you are a good christian you have to be for gun control. if you are a good person you have to be gun-control because otherwise you don't care the kids are getting killed all around the country in school and churches and places like sandy hook. this is what the left now stands for. there are several kinds of belize worth pointing out. i will divide this into two sections. i am going to discuss what it is that we face and the other part of it is how we find this because it is an overwhelming attempt by the left to silence the debate, shut us out from the debate and cow people into being quiet because it is much easier to go about your daily business not being called a racist bigot homophobe who hates every minority. to begin there are institutional belize. the right has lost a lot of institutions. most of my books are about
9:22am
institutions, universities is more hollywood with a media. the reason the right has lost as we think individually and the left things institutionally. we like to debate people on a one on one level, we don't go door-to-door, we will talk to anybody, have a discussion with people on the individual level. when someone is sucked into a facebook conversation with a leftist friend never going to be convinced, always a conservative. you don't see leftist getting sucked into these conversations because leftist too busy taking over the media. the left thinks institutional, once a top down dictation of policy. they understand something we don't. because they think institutionally, because we don't think in terms of control on the left is fond of doing so, they think in terms of instead of lesson 1-on-1 we will take on the university system and he used it as a club to leverage millions of young people to believe that right wingers are bad human beings or we will take over hollywood and everybody who is mildly conservative out of hollywood in order to leverage our point of view down the throats of the american people.
9:23am
they do it with regard to non-profit too and combine with the government. what president obama just did in shifting his campaign to 9 one 5 one seat lobbying program and open the door and an executive order to funding that lobbying group from the government. president obama is somebody who really a understands the battle. he understands the fight. he is very smart and understands he can use outside institutions like media matters, outside institutions like organizing for action, obama for america, use those institutions to put positions he cannot do as president of the united states. combines with those institutions to push forward the agenda and silence people into boycott and secondary boycott against anybody who disagrees. winnow live in a country where few abide by the basic laws of economics yardeni of this it ministration. if you are phil mickelson and you say in california detectives said too hy i am leaving you are told that you are somehow a bad person, there's something wrong with you. there are a lot of people who
9:24am
left california because the taxes are too high. i am paying those ties taxes every day about whether to leave california because of the tax rate because economics exist. the left doesn't think they do. when wendy says obamacare will cost money, perhaps we will have to cut back hours and left response with you do not we will boycott you, that is not a logical coherent economic argument, that is an argument that if you disagree with the effects of one obama's policies do with what the policies do there's something wrong with you, you may a moral decision to cut back those hours, not an economic decision to cut back those hours. leaving aside the institutional bullies for a second there are several types of believing that the left loves to engage in and favors racial bullying. they love it. it is their favorite thing. the reason for that is the left's philosophy is based almost solely and completely at this point on the idea that they stand up for victimized groups. everything they do is to stand up on behalf of a victimized
9:25am
minority. last putter blacks jews, gays, women, they're standing up for you. if we oppose their policies the logic is we hate blacks, jews, gays and women and that is the philosophy they cried out and also means they treat people who are apostates as though they are something wrong with them. if you are jewish and conservative as i am you are not real jew because that gives lie to their entire agenda. if it turns out not all jews agree with them how can they claim to be standing up for all of the victimized minorities? if larry all there is a black man, it is because he is not a good black man and not good at being a black man and the trade is raise. that is a philosophy of the law when it comes to raise. the tactics of what is interesting, we although they use the term racism are too often. the label things races that are not even close to raise. total id not racist but the left says you are a racist if you think that maybe just maybe they should check the name on the voter form with your id to make sure you are not voting for eric
9:26am
holder. they think that is a racist thing. what they love to do, their favorite tactic is to take a single flash point incident, use the media to blow this into the biggest thing that ever happened in the history of humanity, imply that all of america is based on the same racism because this incident and then say the solution to their racism is liberalism. one of the best examples we saw that was last year in the george zimmerman case. the george zimmerman case was the greatest case of media malpractice i think in american history. the only one that would even come close is walter durant trying to cover of genocide in ukraine. the attempt by the media, very clear attempt to frame george zimmerman, really frame him, was obvious and politically motivated. was obvious what they were trying to do. what actually happened in the george zimmerman case in a hispanic man trailing a black man he thought was engage in possible criminal suspicious behavior, called 911 and got out of this kind when he turned around and then back to the car, was confirmed by the black man who proceeded to pound the man's
9:27am
far into the ground until he shot him. that is what actually happened. every police investigation has shown that is what happened. nothing to contradict george zimmerman's accountant invest and not a shred of moments to counter the george zimmerman's of count of invent which was why he was least in the first place. the media turned this into what jesse jackson term debt as, white man, black man shoots him, it wasn't shot in the back of the head but in the chest, george zimmerman was severely injured in that fight, having his head pound against the pavement, there were pictures of it. away the media played is george zimmerman had ever been injured, george zimmerman was stalking him for fun and decided to issue a black guy for no reason and they cut the 911 take to make it look like that. he is being sued because of that. they took the 911 take in which george zimmerman was this request with the raise of the person you're following, he said he is black. nbc cut that tape so what it sounds like george zimmerman is saying is he looks suspicious, he is black. they cut out the extent entire exchange with the dispatcher.
9:28am
he had to be prompted for the raise. the reason that matters is the these the fresh point incidents as an excuse to the liberal policy. here's our work, send al sharpton down to talk about how the stanford police department is massively racist and that in general is a symptom of the unbelievable racism that pervades america, so huge problem in america racism happens all the time, as president obama and many others put it, really al sharpton did this law, people in congress walking on the floor of the house, the argument they were making is this is one black guy is happened to, it happens all the time, white people black contract--by people and killed a man that is the country we live in, racism is just as bad if not worse than it was in 1975. this argument goes to the level of the presidency, where the president says if i had a son he would look like trade on martin which is eminently and true, if you saw the current pictures of him he was ted deutch and had a girl. i doubt you will see such and melia with a girl any time in
9:29am
the future, the point he was making is essentially all black people are treated the same by white people in this country. this is a racist country and therefore if you don't believe in my political prescription that is because you hate me for the same reason george zimmerman hated trayvon martin, because i am black and there is a secondary attempt here that was really interesting. there's a group called the american legislative exchange council. big group, a lot of corporations funded. a put clause i conservative principles all over the country. one of the things is tenure ground law, you all remember george zimmerman, the media played it as though george zimmerman shot trayvon martin and said the police stand your ground, it is the law, stand your ground, george zimmerman didn't know about -- he did know about stan brown, the police didn't cite him, did free amended the stand your ground law, the freedom because there was no probable cause to keep him there. what this was, this all-out assault on stand your ground on which the law says if you're attacked you don't have to retreat and things like that, the whole point of that was to
9:30am
leverage against, and institutional opponent of the obama administration, alec was a big fan of the id and as many elements of obamacare selleck had to be finished. and the way to do that was to say that alan quist are responsible for this murder, horrible racial murder that happened in sanford, florida and by doing that they went to color of change and media matters and the groups we mentioned before and had delivered a boycott against our. alec was so heavily boycotted they had to pull off the same ground are complete, cut back on their voter id efforts, and people actually were pulled their money, coupled his money from them, big corporation that did 20 piece of it and pull their cash and the left the interest only in silencing people with the sort of stuff. that is their main focus and they think institutionally, they're very clever, and weather do with gun controls the is about and control, they will not pass one shred of it. this is about targeting the nra and demonizing the nra so that institutional opponent goes
9:31am
away. think about it for have a second. what did the nra have to do at sandy hook? the answer is nothing. they had nothing to do with sandy hook. connecticut is one of the heavily unregulated state in the country, the nra had not many of the legislation in connecticut, the nra as a privately funded institution that receive no tax dollars. i did see anyone from the aclu being forced to explain why violent video games are okay and there are first amendment. did you? did you see anybody being girl from the aclu about that? they were growing the head of the nra saying you need to change your position. he is the head of an interest group. it is his job not to change his position. but the left expects that he is going to do and they're going to demonize him because the nra must be finished. this is their tactical maneuver. we see it on every front from class warfare, fiscal, turns out we don't want what is best for americans, we just want to help rich folks. turned out that when it comes to sexual politics is not that we believe for a good reason in traditional marriage for example. not that we believe a child
9:32am
deserves a mother and father, none of that is true. just we hate gay people and that makes us for lending human and we are terrible human beings and we see it with regard to god and secularism. if you believe in god and you believe your values ought to be expressed in the public square in the mine that -- most minute maid is because you're a thug who wants to hurt people, what all this does to justify the most vile tactics on the left. a good example of this, i know how many of these, interview with peers morgan on cnn. here's is a good example of this. what appears does, his tactic has always been to go up there and say that whoever opposes him on gun policy, said it to newt gingrich last night, whoever opposes among gun policies because they don't give a damn about the did kid in sandy hook, a vial reprehensible disgusting tactic at the uses it on a regular basis but it really is a microcosm of what the left does on a regular basis. i can remember the last time that the left didn't use this tactic. when president obama trot down 7 year-old to stand behind him as
9:33am
he is announcing gun-control legislation and then he puts on his on the white house website videos of the same 7-year-olds reading letters to the president clearly written by their parents and this is supposed to be a substitute for policy. i am unaware of the point at which seven-year-olds became the best guys solving political problems in this country. of authority and acting for the 7-year-old chris something wrong with that and yet we are supposed to make policy like 7-year-old would so you have a little girl in a red dress shouting into the camera no guns no guns no guns no guns as president obama does, we are supposed to take that as a value, the left's entire tactic right now is to trot out victims and claim that we hit the victim, that they can do what they want to do. so here is how you fight this. here is how you fight this. it works well in appears debate. the first thing that you have to do is we have to frame our opponents. we cannot be civil. civility loses arguments. stability does not work. we have been civil for the last
9:34am
30 years and doing nothing but losing. last time we were uncivil was the tea party in 2010 and we had a massive victory. stability loses. stability is like the geneva convention. here is how it works. here is how it works. if you are in uniform, the geneva convention is applied to you, that in suffices people to stay in uniform so that we can distinguish you from civilians. that is the whole point of the geneva convention. once you get out of uniform, then you are not, the geneva convention doesn't apply, you violated the rules and the rules no longer apply. if you are going to violet and we did not and that of the rules on the other end, the same is true with ability. if somebody is willing to sit and have a civil conversation with you, the as simple as you want to be, the perfectly simple. if somebody is going to be a cure is more than 5, if they're going to be able the because these folks are thugs, if they're going to do that then don't treat them civilly. it doesn't mean be rude, be it mean to alex and shot randomly like a crazy person. what it does mean is you need to say things to them, force them
9:35am
back into the mode of political discussion. if you notice what happened is i met off the interview and he said i said he was off the rails which is true, i did say he was off the rails and then he said why did you say that? i said it is because you are a bully and you stand on the graves of the kids in sandy hook to put your political agenda by implying anyone who disagrees with you is morally deficient. is come that was how dare you clutching his pearls while he was saying that. to which i said how dare you is not an argument. and he said how dare you again, and it still is not an argument. the fact is i have seen his show many times and that is what he does. the reason i did that is twofold. one is that was fun and the other is that, the other is that it forced him not to use that tactic because think of the left like magicians. they don't have fact, they don't have evidence on a homicide. they have slate of hand and their fantastic added. the best magicians have ever
9:36am
seen. is our job to identify those tactics and sit in the back of the room and be the guy who run the magic show. be in the back of the room watches of a magic the is and shouting the rabbit is at the bottom of the hat and if you remove the fault panel there's a rather down there. and get there by magic. that is what i was doing. this is the tactic he used. by doing that, not only do i take that away from him, it was interesting, if you watch the rest of the show after that interview. after i left, paralyzed in a gun shooting, and he started interviewing this kid because we can have discussions with folks who have been shot and try to we are all trying to figure out the best way to prevent people from being shot. we have good intentions here. it is disgusting they imply that we don't. this -- he brought the kid out between segments. first thing that ends, he saw him frantically in his your phone with the producer and they bring out boxes of sudafed to use as a horrible proper and
9:37am
they also bring out this kid and put him in the audience and it is pretty clear to me, maybe i wrong but it is clear to me they're planning to swivel camera around so after i make this argument they will slow pull the camera to the kid who has been paralyzed in the shooting to oppose the image of stark contrast, here is this young guy who is certainly healthy and a gun owner who doesn't care about this kid who has been paralyzed because i said to him that he was going to do that he couldn't do it. it would have been too obvious to everyone. if he had done it i would have immediately said in your stand on the graves of the kids in sandy hook and 9 were standing on his poor person's wheelchair in order to push your point, disreputable and despicable. that is the reason it is important to debunk their tactics. is something we have to be doing on a consistent basis. the second thing we ought to do is need a frame of the debate. one of the big youtube moments was when i brought the constitution out on piers and reached into my pocket and pulled out a copy of the constitution and handed to him. it was fun. number 2 are attending the
9:38am
constitution because it framed the debate. the vulnerability in appears's entire world views he pretends he cares about the second amendment. he does not care about the second amendment. everybody who knows and feels he doesn't care about the second amendment. by pulling out the constitution i was forcing him to fess up. the like this or do you not? if you like this constitution then you have to explain to me why you like the second amendment and explain to me how the gun control proposal you're making don't violate that basic philosophical injunction against infringing on the right of the people to bear arms. you need to reconcile for me how you -- pro huge gun control and second amendment and he couldn't answer that. for robby interview he could better answer why he was for the second amendment and when i forced him to be consistent on his philosophy, this is the third point, the second deck is frame the debate by putting in constitutional context he had no place to go. setting of the philosophical inconsistencies of his argument is the third point. once i said to him you have no
9:39am
philosophical basis for what your doing. you say you want to get rid of assault weapons because they're killing machines, a killing machine and kills more people with a handgun. you set on the year you don't want to ban handguns so explain to me how is it you want to ban rifles but you don't want to ban handguns, why is that you don't care about black kids getting killed in chicago? just the white kids in sandy hook you care about? forcing him to fess up to that meant he couldn't answer. they're the deck in the interview where he says will get back to that and he never comes back to. the fourth point, don't get sidetracked. again, all magic is based on distraction. pretty girl on stage, the point of the left and a lot of debate is you get people sidetracked on to nonsensical issues. this was the entire strategy of the obama administration and i will talk a walk while mitt romney lost, he didn't do anything. the reason the last uses distractions like binder that big bird and this nonsense is contraception so we don't pay attention to the fact the
9:40am
economy blows. economy is horrible. everybody knows the economy is horrible and the economy has not begun to recover any time since the let's talk about condos, let's talk about essentially how the left ran the campaign. we can not be sidetracked by that. we are always playing defense because you're a bad person and natural human instinct is someone says you are a bad person the natural human instinct is to say no i am not. i am not a bad person. why are you saying that? i am not a racist. how can you call me -- no evidence for that. the first instinct needs to be go on the offensive. they are the real racists for defacing the term racism to apply for things that clearly and definitely not racist. if you call something a basic economic policy anti-semitic, had nothing to do with jews, that is an anti-semitic move because your watering down anti-semitism to apply to thing that did not apply. when they're calling people racist without any basis is like a boy who cried wolf. what they're doing is making room for real raise this to be one into the category of rational for people who are for
9:41am
odum id for example. we can't be sidetracked by that. one thing appears did i mention the sudafed finger of your, he took with boxes of sudafed and put them on the table and he says here is the sudafed. i wasn't allowed by six of these at a time so why should anybody be allowed by 1,000 bullets did this time which is there's no logical connection between the two policies. i could be against both policies for both policies or against one and for the other and that is what i said. you want to talk drug policy we will come on and i will do that. if you want to talk gun policy why don't we do that? he had no place to go because he wants to talk about sudafed. as he said later, don't bring boxes of sudafed to the constitution place. which brings me to the fifth point which is don't be intimidated. it is intimidating to be in rooms with a bunch of liberals and if we want to win the debate we have to go into hostile environments. it is not a bad thing because it is an opportunity to convince
9:42am
people. don't be intimidated by thug tactics. there's a point in the interview late in the interview where pierce said you are absurd and ridiculous. and i said to him is not an argument. that is not an argument. if you want to bring people on just to insult them and avoid the argument that is cool, i and a stand that and i am happy to be a scapegoat to abuse people but if you actually want to have a discussion you say you're serious about this issue in serious about this issue let's talk. not being intimidated is half the battle because it is so easy to be intimidated. when someone calls you nasty names is easy to be intimidated. the only thing to do is fight back twice as hard. if you don't know something admit it off the bat. if you don't know about it admitted off the bat because this is how the left likes to trick people. what they do is you're in the middle of an argument and all the sudden they change the topic to something wildly off topic. talking about fiscal clinton subtly you get electron why you hate gay people and not only do you hate gay people but here is a letter signed an stamp from ronald reagan showing that you hate gay people and you have
9:43am
never seen it before and don't know what they're talking about. this is completely random information. what are you saying? the answer to that is not pretend -- the initial reaction is i know what you are talking about. the human response, to the ego, i know what you are talking about, why do we deal with this? i don't know what you're talking about and if you want to talk about it, let me do the research first and we can have an educated debate from the issue. i don't discuss things i don't know about. it take off of the table immediately and if it doesn't take off of the table and they continue to press forward they look like a bully because it is the bullying tactic. you don't ask people to talk about things they don't know about. you don't ask a seventh grader to do calculus unless they are a genius at it and you don't ask them to do college calculus and if you went to the mensa as you don't know caucus and the kid says you are right i don't, you kept saying you still don't know charcas, then you are an idiot and that is the whole point. the kids learn calculus and can discuss the vagaries of derivatives. if you look at what appears did,
9:44am
one of the things he did in the debate is he took out, took out a letter from ronald reagan and said ronald reagan was for the assault weapons ban. i would admit i have no clue what he was talking about, i did know about the matter. now i know when he was talking about with a different assault weapons ban talking about fully automatic weapons. in any case, i had no clue what he was talking about. he was a complete blank and i said my don't know what you are talking about. these are got it right here. i said read it to me. i knew he was going to read it immediately. she read it to me and at the end of our said so. that was the end of the point which brings us to the seventh point which is don't force yourself to lock yourself in with people who you don't have to agree with all the time. you are an individual. you don't have to mirror the republican party platform if you don't agree with the republican party platform. you don't have to defend george w. bush if george w. bush is wrong. you don't have to agree with ronald reagan on everything. with a wonderful president but he wasn't a dog. we get trapped into this too
9:45am
much. this happened with george bush about. with george bush will spend too much money and find yourself debating why is ok for george bush to spend a lot of money. it wasn't ok for george bush to spend a lot of money. it is easy for them to practice with this. try to do on benghazi too, tried to say there were intelligence failures in the george bush administration. the answer to that is okay, so? how does that justify intelligence failures now? we can argue whether it is the same degree, and the same kind, we can argue if it was ignored and all these things but that is an irrelevant point. it has nothing to do with what we're talking about right now and that is a very important thing. don't get sucked into defending positions you don't agree with and are not comfortable with. the seventh point here, the eighth point here is that the other side have what doesn't mean anything. this is a fun thing to do and works really well. it makes you look moderate. during the debate there was a
9:46am
point where peers says to me, i say to him, everybody -- i don't understand what you're point is why you want to take guns from 300 law-abiding americans. everyone wants good people have been common of the ones that people have guns. let's figure out the best way to make that happen and this is smart. he immediately went -- was adam lands's mom good or bad? i don't know her. don't know if she was good or bad. i said i don't know if she is good or bad. he is irresponsible. was good versus that, you are right, you are right, i misspoke. is responsible versus irresponsible. you could see on the taking put put his chest and then realized half a second later there are hadn't been done -- given him anything. there was no wind there. was semantic. is okay to give them semantic wind. it makes you look reasonable. the fact is i was wrong. i should have irresponsible versus responsible. i shouldn't have said good versus bad because it can be taken as too made. the residents the pulling of bad cold and hitler. that can be used in many
9:47am
different senses. it was something i was willing to hand him because it wasn't a win for him and that is something we can do on a frequent basis. the left does this all the time. obama talked out john boehner, we just had a meeting, look what a bipartisan i am. he is not handing john boehner a victory. in a certain sense he is because he is elevating john boehner to the power of the presidency by having 1-on-1 conversations and it feeds john boehner an end which is why he is no longer doing anything but john boehner doesn't get a win out of that. obama gets the win because he gets to come out and see what a bipartisan guy i am. i was in a room with these folks and we had a nice conversation and told him he was a jackass and i threw him out. but a bipartisan guy i am. it isn't over. is the inaugural was we're going to reach out to the other side and make things, if things don't happen then that is their fault. thank you for that bipartisanship but he is smart, understands the tactic, something we ought to be doing at the same time, and the
9:48am
victories that mean nothing. is fine. you can do that and not feel bad about it. there is the ninth point, to try to reverse the larry of staff as possible in a situation. when i was on with peers peers is the host, i am against. within two minutes i was asking peers the questions. that is the way to do this thing. every time we go on with george stephanopoulos people on our side of the aisle, he is a believe. massive boule, one of the biggest bullies in america. no one sees in that way because of his boyish good youth and youthful charm but george stephanopoulos is a massive bullied. he was in the clinton war room and pretends he is an objective journalist so he can ram his agenda down everybody after row. that is what george that law was does. that is his entire stake. instead of going in there and playing on his terms and plan on his terms we need to reverse the clarity. his celebrity as i am objective, you are not objective, i am going to ask questions and make you look horrible and you are going to sit there and make you look horrible because i'm the host and you are the questioner.
9:49am
we should be doing with towards stephanopoulos is walk in before he says anything and say i'm excited to be here on really happy to be here and thank you for giving me access to you in your audience, really appreciate it. before we get started i want to point something out to the audience. i am conservative and say it openly, i am a conservative. you are in liberal masquerading as an objective journalist, you're somebody who was in the clinton war room and takes talking points from the obama administration so we can have a perfectly nice and simple conversation but i want our biases on the table at the outset at the outset people need to know that if i am questioning the premise of your question that is not because i'm being combative but because you're coming from the opposite political viewpoint of mine and it is perfectly fair tactic to do this. newt gingrich did this in the debate and it worked beautifully. it was the finest moment of the presidential debate when he would go after the question. that is what made people like newt. that is what we should be doing. reverse the alert. they are not in control.
9:50am
if you think the audience is stacked against you, if you think there's going to be suspect there is no way to overcome it, don't go. not every camera is an opportunity. you don't have to be with kim kardashian of politics, not every time there's a camera out there you have to run to. it was interesting. years asked me on his show after this whole thing happened after the on-again the atwitter trying to pressure me into coming on for a rematch. he said i want to have an even debate this time. this time i treated him back, i thought was one on one. about as even as you can get. is this going to be one on one? he said no. one of the one on one. i said so i accuse you of standing on the graves of the kids at sandy hook and your responses to bring victims from sandy hook here to use as a club against me. that is what you're going to do now. he said yes, that is what i am going to do. i said that is okay with me as long as i get one on one time with you. all i wanted was a guarantee that i would get 30 seconds with him to point out the tactic he was using.
9:51am
it would be very bad for the majestically to be on with these victims not because you can't have a discussion with the victims but because it is gauche and disgusting and disreputable that the left's main tactic is striding out victims as though they're experts on issues. you do not debate with someone in a time of grief. there are people in the family to die, my aunt died of 42 in breast cancer, did not make me an expert on behavior of breast cancer or to the breast cancer and would be discussing a they trotted me out as someone who is great expertise on the subject of cancer. just because you are victimized by situation doesn't make you an expert. what the left does is try those people out because the left understand the emotional argument, not a real argument, you're going to lose that. i was learning to take that in order to get another let people know what appears was doing because it was just that bad. if it is going to be stacked against you don't walk in the door. i was not going to go in for a stalinist shame festival where i go in and confronted with a bunch of victims of sandy hook and have them yell at me. i have to be their periodic it would make some feel better.
9:52am
i really am. it is their cleats to be there. it is here's's choice to abuse and misuse them. the media's with to try these people. the point is the most important one at all, body language manners in all of this. release matters. it sounds trite but it is true. in the debate with peers, he was up on the desk, clearly angry, his face with angry, i was sitting back, some of it is conscious and some is not. i was having a good time. when it comes to body language too many on our side of the aisle the the the stadium or the wood. they will see folks on tv sitting forward and hunched over and john mccain had horrible body language, one of the reasons he lost. he always looked like he was either on the attack or about to get a tax and there was no in-between and part of that was because of his injury and part of that is sort of coo john mccain is as a human being. we need to work on image, it matters. my last is about tv, the left
9:53am
understand this, they understand it standards and understand what people see is what they believe. this is what the left when the divorce your reason we would never lose an election. as it is it is astonishing to me we are with elections as bad as this stuff is as we are at this stuff. those are kind of the ten points. to recap quickly frame your opponent, frame the debate, such up all the philosophical inconsistencies with your opponent's positions and exploit them. force them to defend the point they say they defend. because there's not a leftist alive in government who is going to tell you the truth about what they really believe. dianne feinstein doesn't want to take for some of your gun the all of your bed, she can't explain why she doesn't want to take all of your guns, that is a and she should be forced to defend. the explain why this gone but not this gun should be banned. don't get sidetracked by their attempts to sidetrack. don't get intimidated by them which is the most important one. as andrew used as a walk for the fire. if you don't know something admit it. that is number 6. number 7, let the other side
9:54am
have those victories that don't mean anything because it makes you look moderate and reasonable and they don't mean anything and if you are wrong you should admit it because that is the reasonable thing to do. if you are wrong and something admit it, it works for obama. obama can add that up front that he used cocaine and that doesn't have any impact that is that going to hurt you to say someone is right on an argument and they used the wrong. the gets sucked in by that paradigm. don't make some force you to defend somebody else's position that you don't believe in. you don't have to defend. is not your job to defend. your individual, not a member of a group, your conservative but you don't believe some things don't bother to defend it because you're not going to be the spokesperson for something you don't believe. number 9 is reversible error in. make sure those positions that they but to take don't buy into that and number 10, the body language thing. it is something that is worth while. while mitt romney lost the 2012 election is the bullying. on a fundamental level that is because of the bullying. because the right does not get
9:55am
it. and mitt romney did not get it. think about it for just a second. how did mitt romney try to portray barack obama? he tried to portray him as a nice guy, good family man, good father, seems like somebody want to hang out with, cares about principles, may be misconstruing them, cares about constitution, bad president. good guy, bad president. that is the picture mitt romney was painting and he succeeded in painting that picture. he did. by the end of the election cycle people understood obama was the first choice at a default but not because it was a great president. like hard-core dnc person building a statue of him in your home you don't think obama is a great president. he hasn't been. he hasn't helped the american people. the picture obama painted of mitt romney, had nothing to do with policy. for the picture he painted of him was the worst person since mussolini. this was the guy who rather dogs at the top of cars, this is a
9:56am
guy who forcibly cut their hair of gay kids in high school, this is the type of guy who will put you all back in chains, this is the type of person with binders full of women because he hates them and agrees with thomas aiken, there are matching uteruses that reject genetic material of rapists, this is the type of guy who wouldn't fire something deliberately for fun because maybe hopefully there wife will get cancer and die. that of the type of climate romney is according to the obama campaign. imagine you are coming to this election knowing nothing about either of the candidates. that is all you know, those two things. who are you going to vote for? of course you are going to vote for obama. you rather vote for the guy who is not evil than the guy who with evil. mitt romney did not understand it. he didn't understand it because here is the logic. by portraying barack obama as a reasonable human being and having barack obama portray him as a racist, mitt romney's case was a reasonable person was
9:57am
considering him a racist. you see that logic? he was saying obama was reasonable and obama was calling him a racist by at treating with obama with civility was lending credence to the charges obama was making against them on a personal character level. we cannot win like that. the fact is our enemies in this debate and they are enemies because they are fighting against constitutional principles and not interested in constitutional principles and when they engage in tactics like this that -- those tactics are deducted. those tactics should not be part of the realm of normal political discourse. the fact the we allow them to and go on air shows and treat them like normal human beings, once you see what they're doing it can't be an scene. you will see it everywhere now. when you watch media and see the question they are asking you will see underneath there is a patina of character assassination always. there's not a single question they are asking where underneath is not character assassination. david gregory brandishing a magazine on national television, he is saying you don't care that kids were killed in sandy hook. that is what he is doing.
9:58am
when you see barack obama saving these republicans don't understand how their economic policies work. what he's really saying is they stand for rich people at hate poor people. here is the fact. unless we start labeling our opponents who they are, they're going to continue to win. we have to punch back twice as hard. civility is not the answer. stability is what loses elections. it may when you the moral high ground but the duck on a moral high ground as the tide rises because the tide of liberalism is rising. is not a retreat. the only way to force it into retreat is not going to be sufficient anymore to do is william f. buckley said and stand of the rails of history shouting stocks, those real the history there's a train on them and the train is coming and it is going to hit us. the only way to fight that train is to have a train moving precisely the same speed or faster in the opposite direction. will there be a crash? sure battista will derail them. that is the whole point. thanks so much. [applause]
9:59am
>> i will try not to flash my pearly whites. we will be glad to take questions. wafer andrew at the microphone. will be important for the recording of the event here. first question. just a moment. >> that was a great talk. one of my pet peeves regarding this whole topic of bullying and how you say the left -- the morning joke on msn b.c. where we have a conservative supposedly who is undermining everything, making it sound like we are morally deficient people and and what the make of that. get >> do this for a
10:00am
honestly. [talking over each other] >> we should be calling him out on that. if you wants to start acting like a conservative he concern acting like a conservative, wants to engage in character assassination to deliver agenda to make $8 million the year from the mess in the seat and did that too. the the the two choices. the doesn't get to sit there and play honest conservative florida never considered principally comes across. .. >> criminals, riots in crown heights that kill jews. he might be that kind of person.
10:01am
might, allegedly. the -- i'm a happy for msnbc and these folks to be there. i'm not happy for the folks who pose journalists and those are the targets attacks. don't bother with george stefanopolis. >> thank you so much for being a strong voice for our shared conservative values m i'm from texas, and there's a lot of social issues all over the country, but this texas, we're very, very conservative in general. i'm wondering your thoughts on the social issues looking forward to the next four years and the next election. take a federalist position and turn issues over to the states to attract more independents? how do we counter that and remain conservative in the values and attract independents we need to win. >> on the abortion issue, no. the gay issue is harder for us
10:02am
because we are framed into, you know, the position if you are anti-gay marriage if you don't like gay people. we lost the argument 40 # years ago. the gay marriage is a symptom of us losing the marriage argument in general. the moment we said it's okay for alternative relationships to exist, to have kids, and we incentivize that, and more than that, once we change the definition of marriage to be not about kids, the definition was about the production and raising of children, but now it's the hollywood con cement, two people who love heaven other. once you're there, it's gay marriage. there's arguments you can use on the other side to that, you know, that we've constantly run from this, and i don't understand. they run from the incest argument. why can't two brothers get married? this is how the left gets
10:03am
comparing homosexuality to incest. it's the same. if they love each other, it's any two people, and you can't make distinctions. don't get -- there's ways to fight that too. on a general level as far as the republican party, i think the marriage issue is a more difficult one. the life issue is easier. when people -- that is a matter of education. once people -- it's interesting. when i was 19, i had a column at 17. when i was 17, 18, 19, i didn't care about the abortion issue. i didn't. it was not my thing. the older i got, the more i care about the abortion issue, and i'm married, and i want to have kids, i care about that issue. the more you learn about science, the more you learn about the abortion issue. on that one, it is. democrats, i think, are astonished to learn their party platform calls for killing a baby five seconds before a enters the birth canal. we should harp on that consistency. we're extremists because you
10:04am
want to go back to conception. the bottom line is they are extreme because we're not the one kills things. they want to kill a baby five seconds before it's in the birth canal, and when they say, safe, legal, and rare, they don't bother with that because they know it's a sham. there's no such thing as safe, legal, and rare. if it's legal, you don't want it to be rare, or if it is rare, it's illegal. you want social structures that don't incentivize that behavior rather than federally funding planned parenthood. it's not worthwhile to give up on the social issues, but reframe them in a way that wins, and i think that it is a moral imperative, and politicians are scared of this. there's a character problem. when they were told they restricted women's choice and say anti-woman, it is not antiwoman to suggest you are not allowed to kill a living, human being; right? i mean, when you talk about late
10:05am
term pregnancy, by left, right, everybody understands, by the time you hit eight or nine months, it's a living human being. everyone understands that. we have to make that argument and hammer. you can't have idiots making it. >> other questions? far back corner and then the lady down here in front. >> james swanson here. what should mitt romney had said to candy youley when she corrected him at the debate, and, side question, why do george moderate party debates? >> republicans are morns. -- morons. in what world do you have a clinton hack asking obama talking points? the contraceptive war on women question was clearly orchestrated, part of a broader campaign. i talked about it in the book. it was obvious what he was doing. as far as how he should have
10:06am
dealt with cannedy, -- candy is we have to make sure the moderators are not hacks. when he did that, he should have said, candy, you are liberal, but your bias is showing now and explain what he meant when he said what he said. there's plenty of problems with the way he handled the benghazi question. could have handled it strong every in general, but you can't let the media walk all over him, and he did and let candy trample him. that's painful. candy is, you know -- sorry. [laughter] >> you mentioned race, racist, sexist, capitalist, all evil. what about islamaphobs. we stayed away from that, but yet, what would you recommend that reasonable people do so that our government officials will be willing to discuss or attempt to understand the
10:07am
underlying ideology? >> i think what we ought to do is people who cast around the term "islamaphobs" is the same people who want to be soft on terrorism, just as a general matter. that's what we have to say. it's a smoke screen. use the term "islamaphobs" to apply to things with nothing to do with those who go to mosque. they are saying muslims -- just like a racist, muslims by necessity are violence, evil, problematic, all of that. that is not what people mean when they use that term. when you say, for example, that you're worried about the influences of the muslim brotherhood in this administration like michele bachmann did, and you're labeled an islamaphob. how? it is on them because if i'm attacking the muslim brotherhood is that i'm not attacking islam, but is linelaism. they are the real islamaphobs
10:08am
because they think they represent islam. the polarity has to be reversed. can't accept the terms of their debate. the moment we do, we lose. >> one final question. oh, i was waiting on you. >> just a small one. >> just wait for the mic. >> a small point, ben. to me, the -- it seems to me the advantage to looking civil when you're in an argument, and certainly romney is that -- his basic personality, and i think obama generally speaking did not attack romney for using bad terms like "racism" and so forth. >> implied though. we also have to uncover the undertone is when they say things, piers morgan said i'm standing on the graves of sandy hook to push the agenda. he just did it. call obama out when he does it. obama in the inaugural never said we hate old people, poor
10:09am
people, disabled people, just implied it, and mitch mcconnell said, obama implied that our entire agenda is driven by victimized groups. we have to have the appearance of civility and shove the knife in as far as it goes. if you read the transvice-- transcripts what i said to piers, it was not nice things. when i lead off with that, i was not -- they were not meant to be nice, but force him into debate, and you can do it while still maintaining the appearance of civility p. you can be a civil human being and say things that are -- i'm not claiming we should go and rant and rave and call them rase us back, but just debunk what they said. we mistake debunking what they say for civility. >> okay. >> thanks so much. [applause] >> as we mentioned, we have
10:10am
copies available and here to sign them, and i'm sure he's glad to talk with you more up here in front too. thank you for your kind attention. we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations] for more information, visit the author's website, benjamin benjaminschapiro.com.
10:11am
10:12am
10:13am
>> you're watching booktv on c-span2, and this is live coverage if the 6th annual savannah book festival in georgia. the events are taking place in downtown savannah at the trinity united methodist church on tellfare square. he's the lineup. in just a moment, former vice
10:14am
president, nobel prize winner, al gore, talks about his most recent book, "the future," and mr. gore highlights several forces he feels will ultimately change the world. after that, we'll introduce you to heidi squire craft talking about her experiences as a navy psychologist, and she talks about her 2004 deployment to a combat hospital in iraq, and then our live coverage continues with jake, author of "the outpost: the untold story of american valor," a newly appointed cnn anchor and chief washington correspondent, scheduled to start his new show on cnn "the lead," in march. after that, evan thomas is next, "ike's bluff" delves into the policy decisions made by president eisenhower that kept the cold war cold. live coverage concludes with